UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1198

SHANQUAN LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted:

December 17, 2008

Decided:

January 14, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wenyue Lu, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. LU, LLC, Rockville,

Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney
General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul T.
Cygnarowicz, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Shanquan Lin, a native and citizen of the Peoples
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration

judges

order

denying

asylum,

withholding

from

removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture and

denying his motion to reopen.
The

INA

authorizes

asylum on any refugee.

We deny the petition for review.

the

Attorney

General

8 U.S.C. 1158(a) (2006).

to

confer

It defines a

refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native

country

because

persecution

on

of

persecution

account

of

or

race,

well-founded
religion,

fear

of

nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

8

U.S.C.

1101(a)(42)(A)

infliction

or

threat

of

(2006).
death,

Persecution

torture,

or

involves

injury

to

the

ones

person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds

Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005)

. . . .

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

An alien bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility
for asylum, Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
2006);

see

C.F.R.

1208.13(a)

(2008),

and

can

establish

refugee status based on past persecution in his native country

on account of a protected ground.
(2008).

Without

regard

to

past
2

8 C.F.R. 1208.13(b)(1)
persecution,

an

alien

can

establish

well-founded

ground.

Ngarurih

2004).

The

v.

fear

of

Ashcroft,

well-founded

persecution

371

fear

F.3d

182,

standard

subjective and an objective component.

on

187

contains

protected
(4th

Cir.

both

The objective element

requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a

reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution.
Id. at 187-88.
presentation

The subjective component can be met through the

of

candid,

credible,

and

sincere

testimony

demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It must

have] some basis in the reality of the circumstances and [be]
validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be
mere irrational apprehension.

Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted).

A

determination

regarding

eligibility

for

asylum

or

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial

evidence on the record considered as a whole.
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

INS v. Elias-

Administrative findings of

fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary.

8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006).

This court will

reverse the Board only if the evidence . . . presented was so

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the
requisite fear of persecution.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at

483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
3

We find substantial evidence supports the immigration

judges and the Boards findings.

Clearly, Lin failed to meet

his burden of establishing the objective element of his claim

for relief.

We do not find that the record compels a different

result.
We further find the Board did not abuse its discretion
in denying the motion to remand.

See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431

F.3d 400, 408 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. *
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

We note we are without jurisdiction to review many of the

issues Lin raises in his brief because the issues were not
properly exhausted.
See 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) (2006);
Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 359 n.2 (4th Cir.
2006) ([T]he alien must raise each argument to the [Board]
before we have jurisdiction to consider it.).